Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Vaughn v. Mississippi Baptist Medical Centergreen2 sentences2017Young, 106 So. 3d at 790 (Kitchens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Vaughn, 20 So. 3d at 657 (Kitchens, J., dissenting)). ¶35. 2011We should not enunciate a hard and fast rule that permanently forecloses the possibility of any nurse's being qualified to give expert testimony on medical causation in any and all cases that may arise in the future. *1055 Id. at 656-57 (Kitchens, J., dissenting). | 4 | 4 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Young, 106 So. 3d at 790 (Kitchens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Vaughn, 20 So. 3d at 657 (Kitchens, J., dissenting)). ¶35. 2017Young, 106 So.3d at 790 (Kitchens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Vaughn, 20 So.3d at 657 (Kitchens, J,, dissenting)). 135,-In the present case, Nurse-Auge opined, .as an. expert, that the shape and location of the .victim’s injuries indicated that those injuries were caused, not by a hard stool exiting the anus, but rather by something entering the anus: “[t]he tears are indicative of something large penetrating the anal sphincter.” ¶ 36. | 1 | 1 |
Sam B. Herron, Sr. v. V. A. Herron, Jrgreen1 sentence2013Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) requires written motions “be served not later than five days before the time fixed for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by order of the court.” Although the wording of this rule is mandatory, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), which at the time 1 required the same five-day notice period as Mississippi’s Rule 6(d), “is not a hard and fast rule, ... and if it is shown that a party had actual notice and time to prepare to meet the questions raised by the motion of an adv | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2013Further, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that even if Mississippi’s Rule 6(d) is violated, the error is not reversible when “proper notice would have been largely a pointless exercise.” Taylor v. Morris, 609 So.2d 405, 409 (Miss.1992). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Mladineogreen1 sentence2011I echo that same reasoning in the case sub judice inasmuch as "it is the scope of the witness' knowledge and not the artificial classification by title that should govern the threshold question of admissibility." Brown v. Mladineo, 504 So.2d 1201, 1202 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Fitzmaurice v. Flynn, 167 Conn. 609 , 356 A.2d 887, 892 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Fitzmaurice v. Flynngreen2 sentences2011I echo that same reasoning in the case sub judice inasmuch as "it is the scope of the witness' knowledge and not the artificial classification by title that should govern the threshold question of admissibility." Brown v. Mladineo, 504 So.2d 1201, 1202 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Fitzmaurice v. Flynn, 167 Conn. 609 , 356 A.2d 887, 892 (1975)). 2011I echo that same reasoning in the case sub judice inasmuch as "it is the scope of the witness' knowledge and not the artificial classification by title that should govern the threshold question of admissibility." Brown v. Mladineo, 504 So.2d 1201, 1202 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Fitzmaurice v. Flynn, 167 Conn. 609 , 356 A.2d 887, 892 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Sparkman v. Sparkmangreen1 sentence1995Sparkman v. Sparkman, 441 So.2d 1361, 1362 (Miss. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marsh v. Marsh
green
2 sentences1999Marsh, 313 S.C. at 46 , 437 S.E.2d at 36 . ¶ 14. 1999Marsh, 313 S.C. at 46 , 437 S.E.2d at 36 . ¶ 14. | 2 | 1996–1999 |
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences1998Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), which tells us we must look at proportionality, the gravity of the offense versus the harshness of the sentence, compare the sentence contemplated with the sentences enrolled against others convicted of the same crime. 1998Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), which tells us we must look at proportionality, the gravity of the offense versus the harshness of the sentence, compare the sentence contemplated with the sentences enrolled against others convicted of the same crime. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Clowers v. State
green
1 sentence1998Clowers v. State, 522 So.2d 762 (Miss.1988) indicates that this may not be such a hard and fast rule, and it relies on Solem vs. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Poyner v. Gilmore
red
1 sentence1984(Emphasis added.) In determining whether an act of a public official is discretionary or ministerial, this court has not laid down a hard and fast rule for determining each case, but the test most often cited is set forth in Poyner v. Gilmore, 171 Miss. 859 , 158 So. 922 (1935). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence1984(Emphasis added.) In determining whether an act of a public official is discretionary or ministerial, this court has not laid down a hard and fast rule for determining each case, but the test most often cited is set forth in Poyner v. Gilmore, 171 Miss. 859 , 158 So. 922 (1935). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.